Compare two different foods side-by-side by nutrients, energy, and quality scores.
The CSV contains energy and nutrients per 100 g for these two records only. Missing measurements remain blank rather than zero. Model scores and personal health conclusions are not exported.
Share your experiences or ask your questions.
Energy
16 kcal
Score
89 / 100
Yaprak kereviz has a higher nutrition quality score (89) and is the overall winner.
Energy Diff
15 vs 16(+6.7%)
Score Diff
85 vs 89(+4.7%)
OVERALL WINNER
Yaprak kereviz
Higher energy
Yaprak kereviz
Score leader
Yaprak kereviz
Nutrient split
3 - 15 (tie: 0)
This chart shows energy per 100 g for both foods.
Each axis is normalized to 0-100; the outer shape indicates relative dominance on that nutrient.
Green/blue bars indicate first food advantage, orange bars indicate second food advantage.
Acur and Yaprak kereviz are compared on a 100 g basis. Check each food record for preparation and portion differences.
Per 100 g, Acur has 15.0 kcal and Yaprak kereviz has 16.0 kcal. The difference is 1.0 kcal.
The recorded nutrition model scores are 85 and 89. These scores are not personal health outcomes or clinical advice.
18 nutrients have measurements for both records. A dash in the table means no measurement is available; it does not mean zero.
| Nutrients | Acur | Yaprak kereviz | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Vitamini (RAE) | — | 150 µg | — |
| B1 Vitamini (Tiamin) | 0.027 mg | 0.05 mg | +85.2% |
| B2 Vitamini (Riboflavin) | 0.033 mg | 0.06 mg | +81.8% |
| B6 Vitamini | 0.04 mg | 0.08 mg | +100.0% |
| Bakir | 0.041 mg | — | — |
| Beta Karoten | 45 µg | — | — |
| C Vitamini (askorbik asit) | 2.8 mg | 15 mg | +435.7% |
| Demir | 0.28 mg | 0.8 mg | +185.7% |
| Diyet lifi | 0.5 g | 1.6 g | +220.0% |
| Enerji (Atwater Genel Faktörleri) | — | 16 kcal | — |
| Folat DFE | 7 µg | — | — |
| Fosfor | 24 mg | 30 mg | +25.0% |
| K Vitamini (filokinon) | 16.4 µg | 100 µg | +509.8% |
| Kalsiyum | 16 mg | 80 mg | +400.0% |
| Karbonhidrat (farkla) | 3.63 g | 3 g | -17.4% |
| Kül | — | 1.4 g | — |
| Magnezyum | 13 mg | 25 mg | +92.3% |
| Mangan | 0.079 mg | — | — |
| Niasin | 0.098 mg | 0.4 mg | +308.2% |
| Potasyum | 147 mg | 300 mg | +104.1% |
| Protein | 0.65 g | 1.5 g | +130.8% |
| Sodyum | 2 mg | 100 mg | +4900.0% |
| Su | 95.23 g | 90 g | -5.5% |
| Toplam Folat | — | 35 µg | — |
| Toplam yağ | 0.11 g | 0.15 g | +36.4% |
| Toplam Şeker | 1.67 g | — | — |
| Çinko | 0.2 mg | 0.13 mg | -35.0% |
Scientific answers to key differences between Acur and Yaprak kereviz.
Acur has less energy per 100 g (15 kcal versus 16 kcal).
For measured Sodyum, Acur has 2 mg and Yaprak kereviz has 100 mg per 100 g. The table shows other nutrients separately.
The score summarizes this site's nutrient model. It does not establish that one food is healthier or suitable for everyone. Scores: Acur 85, Yaprak kereviz 89.
Energy and nutrient values in the table are per 100 g. Actual intake changes with serving size.
Data Sources
Records may come from different sources. Check each food page for source and preparation details; do not treat missing measurements as zero.
Analytical Methodology
The scoring algorithm is a scale of 100 based on nutrient density and macro/micro component balance.